Garp's Franchise Film reviews

BONUS: 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' [1982] [TV]

I was brought up in the UK in the 70s, which should tell you a few things: I owned a Chopper bike, I watched 'Swap Shop' on the BBC on Saturday mornings, Roger Moore was my Bond and Tom Baker was my Dr. Who.

While waiting for my copy of the BBC's 2002 version from the library, I watched Tom Baker's attempt at the famous detective, as found online. This was a multi-part adaptation, and unfortunately not all the parts are intact - at least, not as far as my meagre research could uncover. No matter, I knew the story well enough by now, so filling in the missing sections wasn't overly strenuous.

What we are left with is a straight-faced, unadorned and rather flat telling of the tale. With so much missing, Baker's Holmes is little more than a cameo. He is adequate in the role, but it was difficult - if not impossible - to separate him in my mind from the famous Time Lord. Terence Rigby as Watson is a hollow Nigel Bruce and Nicholas Woodeson plays the tiniest Sir Henry so far imagined. (The poor man can't help his stature, of course, but he is comically small and completely unfit for the role.) Will Knightley as Dr. Mortimer looks like a young Ben Whishaw, so much so that I thought he might be his Dad. He's not; he's actually Keira Knightley's Dad, strangely enough.

Not a thing is special about this version. It looked and felt like a filmed stage production, with a barely-moving camera, fake sets and occasional over-the-top dramatics so that those in the back could tell what was going on. If you're looking for a Tom Baker fix, there's an entire series of far better stuff to seek out, of course, and if you want an entertaining 'Hound' retelling, then look pretty much anywhere else.

'The Hound of the Baskervilles' [2002] [TV]

What is it that draws filmmakers to a Sherlock Holmes novel that doesn't feature the star for much of the second act? Whatever, here we go again with a version that cribs parts from various other adaptations, dumps what it doesn't need then adds a further dash of dramatics. Somehow, it works.

The film starts uniquely enough with the dead Baskerville's inquest, intermingled with flashbacks, shots of the dour moor and the murderer Seldon on the run. It's written and shot with almost Hitchcockian brevity. Here, Dr. Mortimer is not the absent-minded naiive; as played by John Nettles, he is competent (the missing walking stick scene is abandoned) and reminded me what a good actor Nettles is. He is great here and it's a shame his role is so small.

Richard Roxburgh as Holmes does well, though I didn't quite buy his portrayal. I couldn't help thinking he would make a better Joseph Bell - the real life inspiration for Holmes - rather than the literary figure himself. Still, he gets to rough it up with a cabby and graphically shoot up narcotics, so he has that going for him; alas, no disguises and funny voices, though.

Ian Hart looks too young to play Watson, but does admirably as expected. Unusually, his Watson not only doesn't kowtow to his superiorly-brained companion, he doesn't even seem to like him. If Holmes were on screen more, this could have been annoying, but it worked as is. Richard E Grant is devilish as Stapleton, just managing to skirt moustache-twirling.

The Laura Lyons subplot is excised, so no Frankland either. For scheduling reasons, presumably, (it premiered on the BBC on Boxing Day) this version takes place around Christmas (the hound's footprints are visible in the snow, not mud as all others have depicted) and so there are Christmas dinners and parties and the like. Also included is the seance scene, original to the 1939 version, with a twist. The hound gets the most screentime of any of the beasts thus far, and is decidedly vicious, much to the joy of the BBC make-up team, no doubt. The climax takes the most liberties, amping up the reveals and giving Watson more of a heroic role. It's not canon, I expect, but it's entertaining as hell. Overall, this is a Top Tier adaptation.

^ Glad you enjoyed it.

Garp said:

Ian Hart looks too young to play Watson, but does admirably as expected. Unusually, his Watson not only doesn't kowtow to his superiorly-brained companion, he doesn't even seem to like him. If Holmes were on screen more, this could have been annoying, but it worked as is.

Click to expand...

Sometimes Watson is portrayed as a sort of kindly old fool, which is certainly not the case with Ian Hart's interpretation, which I liked a lot. IMO his pairing with Rupert Everett as Holmes in the sequel TV-movie 'The Case of the Silk Stocking' is better.


I think Holmes and Watson are supposed to be much younger men than they are often portrayed. They first meet when Holmes is 25 (or there abouts) in the first adventure and I get the impression that Watson is supposed to be a bit younger than Holmes (I could be wrong). Going with the assumption that HotB is set a few years before it was published, that'd make them mid to late 30s. I think Ian Hart was 38 at the time he first played Watson, where as Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were in their 50s when they played Holmes. Sherlock's final official adventure was when he was 60, which was Brett's age when solved his last case (so he caught up with Holmes ).

TM2YC said:

I think Holmes and Watson are supposed to be much younger men than they are often portrayed. They first meet when Holmes is 25 (or there abouts) in the first adventure and I get the impression that Watson is supposed to be a bit younger than Holmes (I could be wrong). Going with the assumption that HotB is set a few years before it was published, that'd make them mid to late 30s. I think Ian Hart was 38 at the time he first played Watson, where as Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were in their 50s when they played Holmes. Sherlock's final official adventure was when he was 60, which was Brett's age when solved his last case (so he caught up with Holmes ).

Click to expand...

Interesting. My canonical knowledge of Holmes is non-existent, but that makes sense.

TM2YC said:

Sometimes Watson is portrayed as a sort of kindly old fool, which is certainly not the case with Ian Hart's interpretation, which I liked a lot. IMO his pairing with Rupert Everett as Holmes in the sequel TV-movie 'The Case of the Silk Stocking' is better.

Click to expand...

That's already on my watchlist, down the line.

'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' [1939]

The quintessential Holmes (Basil Rathbone) stars in possibly the quintessential film, featuring as it does his arch-nemesis Moriarty, a Victorian setting and the legendary phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson". 

The film starts in media res, with Moriarty in the dock for murder. A last minute exclamation by Holmes can't stop a non-guilty verdict, and the two have a wonderfully taut scene in a cab back to Baker Street as Moriarty taunts Holmes - he will bring off the crime of the century under his very nose!

The game, then, is very much afoot and the film barely lets up for its full 81 minutes. There are, purposefully, two plots running simultaneously, one designed to distract Holmes from the other. It's well done, showing off Holmes' deductions (though I was surprised he didn't recognise an albatross right off the bat). Nigel Bruce as Watson has already morphed into the bumbling old duffer here, all breathless bluster and childlike guilty faces. He may not be the Watson Conan Doyle had in mind, but he is as comfortable as old slippers and thus I can't really chastise him for that.

Rathbone gets to don another disguise (a good one, too; I obviously haven't seen enough Holmes films yet as I didn't recognise him) and later go one-on-one with the villain. Despite some wooden supporting roles, this is marvelously entertaining. After this, the franchise transferred to Universal Studios - out with the 1890s Holmes and in with Rathbone the Nazi-Hunter. The Victorian detective went out on a high, however.

*Personal note* I've finished the second draft of my mid-grade children's book on pirates. It's 49K words and I'm looking for beta readers to help mold it into something publishable. If you think you might be interested in critiquing it, send me a PM with your email address. Thanks.

BONUS: 'Young Sherlock Holmes' [1985]

This Spielberg-produced, Barry Levinson-directed film takes great pains to point out that this is not an actual Conan Doyle story, with onscreen text both before and after the film. It's unnecessary as the plot is closer in feel to Indiana Jones than Sherlock Holmes. This is no bad thing, although the film struggles to maintain enough action and adventure to make it a classic.

Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) and Watson (Alan Cox) meet at boarding school, become fast friends and embark on their first case. Seemingly unrelated men are dying or killing themselves in unusual circumstances. The plot is immaterial, though, as the villain is easy to spot early on, even if the motive is impossible to guess. I saw this when it was originally released and only remembered two things from it this time around - the flying machine and the CGI stained glass knight. The latter was more impressive than I expected, this being the first time this level of CGI had been used. It's obviously basic by today's standards but fits within the film.

Rowe and Cox do well as leads, as does Sophie Ward with a script that gives her little to do. The film begins to lose it's way about an hour in and never really recovers. It's a shame as it's so close to being good, weird animatronic and stop-motion hallucinations notwithstanding.

'Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror' [1942]

Universal Pictures take up the reins for this Basil Rathbone - Nigel Bruce franchise, transplanting our heroes to contemporary war-torn London. Britain is being bombarded by German radio broadcasts mocking it's war effort and foretelling episodes of sabotage. The government solicit Holmes to smoke out the phantom broadcaster and thus end the demoralising disasters.

I found this more interesting as a historical document rather than an entertaining film in its own right. Kudos for Universal for continuing the perfect pairing of Rathbone & Bruce (in film terms rather than canonical literature), and the World's Greatest Detective makes for a sturdy patriotic figure to battle the scourge of Germany. Still, I missed the Victoriana elements (the brief deerstalker gag notwithstanding).

This is very much of its age, probably made swiftly and cheaply to boost morale and sell war bonds (the film ends with such a plug). The Nazis are dastardly, out to wipe anything less than perfection from the face of the Earth. There are stirring speeches aplenty and the film wraps everything up within a brisk 65 minutes, ready to play over again as quickly as possible. There appears to be stock footage and scenes with obvious models, making it look at times more like a Saturday morning serial. Rathbone seems a little more aloof here, barely acknowledging the murdered man in his front room, and sports a distracting haircut.

Even so, the film has a great noirish look to it, elevating its otherwise fairly humdrum nature. It hits the target its aiming for square on and I can't fault it for that, even if it wasn't up my alley. Still, it stirred the British Lion within me; I would have bought a ton of those war bonds back in the day, I'm sure.

'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' [1942]

Bless the Swiss, with their chocolate, cuckoo clocks and neutral scientists secretly making bomb sights for the Allies. Here, Holmes has to smuggle the inventor into England and keep him safe. Alas, a dozing companion and the return of an arch nemesis foil his plans. Can England prevail?

'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' is a simple WWII spy thriller with secret codes, hidden passageways and disguises. It could have been a pretty good Hitchcock film and would easily have worked without Holmes as a protagonist. He does get to show off his deductions, as per norm, and his hair isn't quite so distracting here, but it's a basic thriller rather than a mystery. The film moves at a cracking pace and is never not entertaining. Lionel Atwill plays the villain but lacks pizzazz; at times, he seems to be reading his lines from cue cards offscreen. Holmes' disguises are easier to spot and verge on comic (Peter Sellers must have been a fan). Still, it's a solid B-movie nonetheless.

'Sherlock Holmes in Washington' [1943]

This 1943 film could quite well have been re-titled 'Sherlock Holmes and the MacGuffin'. Here, Holmes is on the trail of missing documents vital to the war effort. His sleuthing takes him across the pond to Washington where he mixes with society ladies and shady antique dealers.

This is another of those not-really-Holmesian plots but it's a cracking film nonetheless. There's little in the way of expert deduction that your average cop couldn't have figured out but it's such a fun romp I honestly didn't care. It's also one of the funniest so far, with some great banter and rapport between Rathbone and Bruce.

The film introduces the characters and story well as we follow them from plane to train. There's an Agatha Cristie-like ensemble with fewer red herrings, and Holmes is nowhere to be seen for several scenes. This is one of those films where the audience know more than the characters and it's handled remarkably well. A scene in which a seemingly innocent object is passed around frivously holds great suspense.

The flag-waving is toned down even more in this film and I'm beginning to get used to Rathbone's hair. Conan Doyle may not recognise his creation in 'Sherlock Holmes in Washington' but I'm OK with that, so long as these films continued to be this brisk and entertaining.

BONUS: 'Sherlock Holmes' [1922]

John Barrymore stars as the titular hero in this 1922 silent film. It was restored with funding from Hugh Hefner, of all people, and features future stars such as William Powell, Roland Young and Hedda Hopper. It is based on a play by William Gillette.

The film dispenses with Conan Doyle canon from the start, showing Holmes and Watson as college friends (not dissimilar to 'Young Sherlock Holmes', actually.) However, little effort is made to de-age the stars, making them easily the oldest students on campus. More shenanigans ensue to get purists in a tizzy - Holmes falls in love at first sight, seemingly spending years moping over this lost love.

The plot is too fragile to properly withstand the whole film, making it quite a chore to get through, unfortunately. A prince - another old college friend - jilted his true love when he takes the crown. As is the wont of delicate ladies in the 20s, no doubt, she kills herself. Years later, the new King is being blackmailed. Throw Moriarty into the mix and you have a confusing and tedious mess.

Moriarty is made up like a cross between Fagin and Scrooge, for reasons that only become clear much later in the film when Holmes utilises one of his famous disguises. There are some good location shots - I love seeing old film of London - and Barrymore seems to fill Holmes' boots reasonably well. The restoration is well done; the intertitles look new and they solve the stabilization issue with a bouncing horizontal frame. It's little distracting but probably preferable to cutting off more of the image. 

I wish I liked this more. It's obvious a great deal of care was taken in making and especially restoring what is probably the earliest depiction of Holmes on screen that has survived. Unfortunately, the plot is dated, there are few high stakes and is dull overall. For Holmes completists and those interested in living historical documents.

'Sherlock Holmes faces death' [1943]

I feel ill-equipped to properly review this film. I dozed off more times than I care to mention while watching it. In fact, as I read the plot summary on Wikipedia, I realise there are great chunks of the thing I was merrily napping through.

Is this a reflection on the film itself? Partly. 'Sherlock Holmes faces death' is the first of the contemporary films to dispense with any Nazi bad guys, and I sort of missed them. Instead, we have a straight-up mystery on our hands, with greedy toffs and skulking butlers. On an evening when I wasn't so obviously knackered, I probably would have enjoyed it, but I couldn't help drifting off.

Uncharacteristically, Bruce's Watson irked me, being far too buffoonerish in this one for my liking. On the plus side, Rathbone had an altogether more acceptable haircut. It seems I missed a game of chess played with humans, which is a shame; I would have liked to have seen that. Oh well.

'The Spider Woman' [1943]

We live in interesting and unpredictable times. It is comforting, therefore, to learn that times were just as confused back in 1943, where Sherlock Holmes had to battle a mute hopping child catching flies, gas-producing sweet wrappers, a venomous spider and a pygmy while pretending to be Indian or dead.

I'm a sucker for bonkers plots and 'The Spider Woman' fits the bill in spades. I can't believe how much madness they managed to fit into a sprightly 62 minute film. The premise is that men are seemingly killing themselves unexpectedly during the night - the so-called 'Pyjama Suicides' (brilliant!). Holmes suspects murder, of course, and is willing to drown himself to prove it.

The title character is played by Gale Sondergaard in a wonderfully vampy way. Her banter with Rathbone is reminiscent of his verbal sparring with Moriarty in previous films, this time with a flirtatious edge. Rathbone gets to don a couple of disguises, his first being better than the dated stereotypical Indian. Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade has a more prominent role here; he and Bruce as Watson make a good double act.

All kudos, though, goes to Teddy Infuhr as the aforementioned mute hopping boy. Why does he hop? I don't know and I don't care; I'm just happy that he does, adding extra enjoyment to an already bizarre film. Apparently there was a spin-off - 'The Spider Woman Strikes Back' - with Sondergaard again in the lead role, though it is only loosely connected. I may have to seek it out, still, if only in the hope that little Teddy is still hopping and catching flies, ninja-like.

BONUS: 'The Spider Woman Strikes Back' [1946]

Gale Sondergaard returns as The Spider Woman in this connected-only-by-name follow-up to the 1943 Sherlock Holmes film. Brenda Joyce plays a young woman who is hired to be a companion to a wealthy 'blind' woman. The story is slow and dull, involving spiders (naturally), blood and 'Little Shop of Horrors' mini puppet plants.

I wasn't expecting much from this but it failed even to rise to that low bar. Alas, no mute hopping boys here, though Rondo Hatton is mute as the butler. Is he young Teddy all grown up, mutated by the spider/blood concoction? I like to think so. Otherwise there is nothing to hold anyone's interest here. I fell asleep, but of course. Pass.

'The Scarlet Claw' [1944]

Rathbone returns with a normal haircut in this 'Hound of the Baskervilles'-lite film. A supernatural terror has been ripping the throats out of sheep, and has now turned its attention towards humans. Holmes, however, suspects a more down-to-earth solution.

There is nothing wrong with this film as such. The characters are interesting and well acted. The mystery works, and the settings are appropriately foggy and spooky. Despite now having played the same role eight times, Rathbone is as sprightly and engaged as ever. Bruce's bluster somehow still manages to be charming here too.

Even so, I found the result a tad dull. The retread of 'Hound of the Baskervilles' (which even gets name-checked) is too obvious. We've seen this film before, and I liked it better the first time. After the bizarre 'Spider Woman', it feels a bit of a letdown, albeit a very well made one.

'The Pearl of Death' [1944]

'The Pearl of Death' is another bog-standard Hunt-The-MacGuffin tale elevated by excellent acting. Holmes bags the titular pearl, loses said pearl then finds it again, albeit with some fun disguises and actual sleuthing along the way.

Rathbone still shows no sign of fatigue although Bruce seems hammier than usual. Miles Mander is a standout as the slimy villain, ably assisted by Evelyn Ankers. Rondo Hatton plays The Creeper, a role he returned to twice in 'House of Horrors' and 'The Brute Man', both of which I hope to review. A close-up shot of his hand caused a jolt of recognition in me - there was something about it that dredged up a childhood scare, making me certain I must have seen this film at a tender age. Our minds work in strange ways.

Anyway, I liked it. No, it's not a must-see film, but it's an effective mystery with great performances, And how often do you get to see Holmes screw up royally? Just don't show this to very young children; it might get embedded in their psyche for decades.

BONUS: 'House of Horrors' [1946]

Rondo Hatton returns as The Creeper in this solidly B-movie quickie. The plot begins with an 'It's a Wonderful Life' type scene (albeit pre-dating that iconic film) in which a man on a bridge contemplating suicide decides to save a drowning man instead. That man turns out to be the disfigured Creeper, whom he befriends.

There isn't much in the way of backstory - The Creeper has previously been assumed dead, and how he ended up in the water isn't explained. Still, there he is, large as life and twice as intimidating. Our hero (or rather, ant-hero) is an artist much maligned by the critics. With an almost inhuman sidekick at his beck and call (one who owes him a life debt), he orders The Creeper to exact his revenge. Yes, this film has newspaper art critics as its victims.

Hatton plays The Creeper like Frankenstein's monster, both in rigid gait but also with a touch of pathos. Martin Kosleck does well as the totured artist, but other characters are broad caricatures very much at home in B movies. It's not the most exciting film to watch visually - the sets are minimalist - and the plot is simplistic, but it has no pretensions.

'The House of Fear' [1945]

Holmes and Watson leave their comfy Baker St pad to solve a mystery at an old Scottish mansion. A group of rich unattached men are being bumped off after receiving an envelope containing orange pips. As their numbers decrease, so do the list of suspects.

This is very much a whodunnit in the style of Agatha Christie, with shady characters, red herrings and the like. No pesky Nazis, no femme fatales, just a creepy old house and a dour Scottish housekeeper. Rathbone seems to be enjoying himself, almost unable to keep a straight face when listening to a drunken Scot in a pub (I couldn't be certain if Rathbone was staying in character here or not). Dennis Hoey makes an unlikely reappearance as Inspector Lestrade, traveling all the way from Scotland Yard to match wits with Holmes, and getting bested, of course.

Other actors do an adequate job of keeping the viewer guessing as to which is truly involved in the offings, and I was wrong-footed. It's a neat little mystery but unlike some top-class whodunnits, I can't see myself wanting to return to it to see where I was led astray. Still, certainly worth 69 minutes of your time, if you're in the mood.

BONUS: 'Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking' [2004]

Two years after the BBC adapted 'The Hounds of the Baskervilles', they took another stab at Sherlock Holmes with this original story. Ian Hart returns as Dr. Watson with Rupert Everett playing England's finest detective.

How much you enjoy this production will hinge on how much you like Everett, I'd imagine. He is hardly stretched here, playing an upper-class intellectual barely tolerating the masses. Some of his quips channel another of his well-known characters, that of Oscar Wilde, and the blurring of the two sometimes was distracting. Nevertheless, Everett makes for an entertaining Holmes.

The production is lush - London has never looked so foggy and unappealing! - and the plot has some good twists. An otherwise minor role is played by a well-known face, which sort of gives the game away slightly - the 'who' in the whodunnit is obvious. What the story toys with is the 'how' and, to a lesser extent, 'why'.

Ian Hart is always a joy to watch, although he isn't really a major presence here, having been gifted with an American fiancee. Still, he does well in portraying his obvious concern over Holmes' increased boredom and drug use. Often, the companionship feels forced and I'm left wondering how the pair are even colleagues, let alone friends. Here, it feels natural. Recommended.